RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
Hi Everyone,
Things seem to have settled down on this, and I haven't seen any traffic
on it recently. I feel it is time to move forward with a motion. Based
on what I have heard to date I plan to make the following motion.
"Motion that until the P&P revision titled "WG membership" being
balloted starting March 27th, 2003 is completed (estimated to occur at
the end of the July 2003 IEEE 802 Plenary meeting, the line in the LMSC
P&P section 5.1.3.2 titled "Retention" reading
"Membership is retained by participating in at least two of the last
four Plenary session meetings."
Should be interpreted as reading:
"Membership is retained by participating in at least two of the last
four Plenary sessions. (This rule is applied just after the second
plenary session of a Working Group with the assumption that no sessions
were attended prior to the first session of that Working Group.
Membership through the second Plenary session of a WG is established via
attendance at the first Plenary session as described in section
5.1.3.1.)"
I believe this interpretation is consistent with the method promoted by
Mike and Roger, but worded somewhat differently. It has the advantages
that it does not disenfranchise any 802.20 member for the first or
second sessions of the WG, but permits for a quick roll off of
membership starting from the end of the 2nd meeting of that WG.
I hope to formally make this motion shortly. I am still open for
comments, but hope to limit them to editorial issues. I did not get
significant comments from many EC members, but am hopeful that the
interpretation here could carry a majority vote, which is all that is
required for it to pass.
Best Regards,
Mat
Matthew Sherman
Vice Chair, IEEE 802
Technology Consultant
Communications Technology Research
AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
Room B255, Building 103
180 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 12:50 AM
To: 'Roger B. Marks'; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
Roger,
So while your words may be different, I think you are saying the same
thing as Mike is. Also, while your explanation sounds simple, it is not
complete without the additional definitions such as for "recent
meetings". For completeness (from your web site as you suggested) those
definitions are:
"An individual is generally considered to have participated in
an 802.16 Session by virtue of having paid the registration fee and
having attended during at least 75% of the meeting intervals during that
Session. [Specific procedures involving attendance sign-in are used to
determine participation; sign-in during a meeting interval requires
attendance during substantially the entire meeting interval (typically a
morning, an afternoon, or an evening)."
"A recent 802.16 Session is one of the previous four 802.16 LMSC
Plenary Sessions, excluding the current one, or another 802.16 Session
that took place since the first of those."
Personally, I like this approach as it results in a quicker roll off of
non-participants. On the other hand, if a person attended Plenary 1,
skipped Plenary 2, and attended Plenary 3 they would maintain membership
under the 2 out of 4 rule normally. Under your interpretation, they
would lose membership after Plenary 2, and not be able to regain it
until plenary 4 (and only if they attend).
So, the interpretation in this case is that the "2" from "2 out of 4"
applies, and not the "4". While I like the result, I am uncomfortable
with the interpretation, which is why I guess I put forward the one I
did which would maintain membership if only Plenaries 1 and 3 were
attended. As I said though, if I see a consensus build around your
interpretation, I would support it.
Mat
Matthew Sherman
Vice Chair, IEEE 802
Technology Consultant
Communications Technology Research
AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
Room B255, Building 103
180 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 12:21 AM
To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
Mat,
I agree that you have misinterpreted my plan. I'm sorry I wasn't clear.
I'm proposing we follow what I believe is the current rule. It's the
pure 2-of-4 rule: after each Plenary, you delete members unless they
have participated in at least two recent sessions (one of which was a
plenary). Recent is defined as basically the span of the last four
plenaries. You don't delete members after the first session, because
it's impossible for anyone to have attended two at that point. Other
than that, you don't worry about how many sessions have taken place.
The startup scenario isn't complete unless you know how to add
members in the startup period. Once again, I recommend the simple
solution, as in the current rules. I define it this way for 802.16:
"Membership is granted at each 802.16 LMSC Plenary Session to those
in attendance who have participated in at least two recent 802.16
Sessions, one of which was an 802.16 LMSC Plenary Session."
Roger
>Matt, I think you may have misinterpreted Roger's proposal. In his
>scenario the 2nd session was an interim session, so you had to
>attend either the interim session or the next plenary session. If
>there were no interim meeting, then one would have to attend the
>very next plenary session of the working group in order to retain
>membership (i.e. voting rights).
>
>Thanx, Buzz
>Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
>Boeing - SSG
>PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
>Seattle, WA 98124-2207
>(425) 865-2443 Fx: (425) 865-6721
>everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: mjsherman@research.att.com [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
>Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 8:21 PM
>To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
>
>
>Hi everyone,
>
>So I will try to summarize what I have heard on the reflector so far
>today. First there are two problems we are dealing with:
>
> 1) Defining the 802.20 membership for future meetings
> 2) Defining a voting process for the next 802.20 elections
>
>Actually there are two other issues:
>
> 3) Do we allow chairs to interpret "meeting" as "session"
> 4) Increasing the speed at which membership may be lost
>
>I feel these last two issues will be resolved in the rules change and
>are not relevant to 802.20 moving forward at this time. I think the
>election process is an important by separate topic, so I will deal with
>it in a different e-mail.
>
>One theme I do hear is that we don't want to disenfranchise the 802.20
>membership defined last meeting. However, how we interpret the
>retention rules to do this seems to vary from person to person. Here
is
>what I think I hear so far:
>
> The Mat proposal: (Buzz supports and Bob O'Hara?)
>
> I suggested a simple assumption of attending 4 (or for that
>matter an infinite number) of meetings prior to the first meeting of a
>WG.
>
> The Mike proposal:
>
> You need to have attended 2 sessions after the second WG session
>to retain membership. This would imply that you have to attend the
>second plenary WG session (or the interim before then if there is one)
>in order to maintain membership.
>
> The Roger proposal: (Robert Love supports)
>
> If you attend either the 2nd or 3rd Plenary session (with
>allowed substitution of an interim) you maintain your membership.
>
>Personally, I can go with any of these options, as long as we have a
>consensus between us. Obviously this all needs to feed into the rules
>change as well. The key difference in my mind is the earliest time you
>can loose membership. For the three proposals voters can first lose
>rights after the following plenary session:
>
> The Mat proposal: 4th plenary
> The Mike proposal: 2nd plenary
> The Roger proposal: 3rd plenary
>
>The one idea I will write against is Roger's. In my mind there are two
>constraints in the two out of four rule: the number of sessions
>attended constraint, and the number of sessions evaluated constraint.
>Neither of them can be validly applied at the first meeting. At the
end
>of the second meeting, it is first possible to meet the number of
>sessions attended constraint. So it could be interpreted as valid to
>evaluate it and decide if it is met independent of the 4 session rule.
>This in my mind is what Mike's proposal does. On the other hand, the 4
>session constraint can't be evaluated until the 4th session since by
>definition it cannot be met before then. In essence, the "Mat"
proposal
>forces implementation of the 2 out of 4 rule to be delayed until 4
>meetings actually exist. My objection to the "Roger" proposal is it
>does not directly tie to either constraint. Rather it is in-between
>(with possible loss of rights after the 3rd meeting), and as such can
>not be viewed as interpreting the 2 out of 4 rule (my opinion). That
is
>not to say I would not consider adopting Roger's proposal for the up
>coming rules change. But I don't consider it a valid interpretation of
>the 2 out of 4 rule as it does not clearly tie to either constraint.
>Rather it is somewhere in between.
>
>Anyway, I'm looking for further comment - particularly from those who
>haven't expressed an opinion yet. Again, my goal is to have a high
>consensus on a proposal before I actually put it forward as I will only
>have one shot at this before the upcoming 802.20 interim.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Mat
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Matthew Sherman
>Vice Chair, IEEE 802
>Technology Consultant
>Communications Technology Research
>AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
>Room B255, Building 103
>180 Park Avenue
>P.O. Box 971
>Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
>Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
>Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
>EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert D. Love [mailto:rdlove@nc.rr.com]
>Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 7:00 PM
>To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org; Roger B. Marks
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
>
>
>Roger, your clear thinking cuts to the heart of the problem. I for one
>and
>delighted that we have the benefit of your straight forward,
no-nonsense
>analysis.
>
>Thank you.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Robert D. Love
>President, LAN Connect Consultants
>7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
>Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
>email: rdlove@ieee.org Fax: 208 978-1187
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
>To: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
>Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 4:24 PM
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
>
>
>>
>> I suggest a membership retention plan that, I believe, is based on
>> the rules. It's the one I used when 802.16 was starting up.
>>
>> First of all, membership is clearly based on participation. I cannot
>> fathom why anyone would suggest applying the 2-of-4 rule after the
>> first session. If you have participating if every session the
Working
>> Group has ever had, then you are member. Period. I really hope we
can
>> avoid further debate on this point. [On other other hand, clarifying
>> it with a rules change is a fine idea too.]
>>
>> Now, beyond the first session, things can get complicated if we let
>> them, if we start introducing concepts like fictional attendance at
>> fictional pre-existing sessions. I also think that this approach
>> leads to a poor result. In contrast, I think that the rules, in
>> principle, have the right idea as written [though they are clearly
>> too fuzzy]. Let me explain.
>>
>> The first opportunity to lose membership in a new WG is after the
>> second Plenary (Session #3, assuming there is an interim Session
#2).
>> In the case of 802.16, I followed the 2-of-4 rule literally. That
>> meant that, to retain membership beyond Session #3, you needed
>> participation in a second session beyond #1. In other words, the
>> easily-obtained membership that you scored in Session #1 would not
be
>> a long-lasting one if you never attended another session. If you
>> skipped #2 and #3, you were out. As long as you followed up #1 with
>> either either #2 or #3, you were covered on a long-term basis,
>> because you would have 2-4 all the way until #1 was aged out.
>>
>> Is this unfair disenfranchisement? I don't think so. The rules grant
>> membership liberally at the first session, but the initial few
>> sessions are important. Typically, a bunch of new people show up at
> > Session #1 to get membership. That's fine; this is what the rules
>> say, and it's how it ought to be. But that membership covers only
the
>> first three sessions. If you can't be bothered to participate in #2
>> or #3, then you lose your membership. Fair enough, in my view. I
>> don't think that Session #1 ought to buy you a free one-year
>> membership pass.
>>
>> Further, there is more to the story. If, for instance, you
>> participate in Session #4, then you will qualify for 2-of-4 when you
>> come to Session #5, so you can earn your membership back. Fair
enough.
>>
>> In my opinion, the startup rules are brilliantly designed. However,
>> they are poorly executed. I think we simply ought to fix the
>> execution.
>>
>> By the way, in 802.16, the membership rules are translated from
those
>> in 802 to make them clean and simple. I'd like to see the 802 rules
>> follow this same approach. The rules are here
> > <http://ieee802.org/16/membership.html>. In summary, they read:
>>
> > *Membership is granted at each 802.16 LMSC Plenary Session to those
> > in attendance who have participated in at least two recent 802.16
> > Sessions, one of which was an 802.16 LMSC Plenary Session.
> >
>> *At the end of each 802 LMSC Plenary Session, membership is lost by
>> those who have not participated in at least two recent 802 Sessions,
>> one of which was an 802 LMSC Plenary Session.
>>
>> All the rest is just definitions of "participation" and "recent
>session."
>>
>> Roger
>>
>>
>> >Hi Everyone,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >So far, I haven't seen a lot of comment on my suggestion that we
>> >interpret the rules. The email trail to date is given below. To
>> >summarize what I have heard so far (based on the e-mail trail):
>> >
>> >1) At least some of us believe that membership based on SG
>> >attendance was originally discussed by 802 and intentionally
avoided
>> >in the current rules
>> >
>> >2) Al least some of us believe that the intent of the current
>> >rules was indeed to give anyone present at the initial meeting
>> >voting rights under the assumption they would continue to attend
>> >
>> >3) At least some of us believe that "meeting" really meant
>> >"meeting", not "session" in the current new WG membership rules
>> >
>> >4) At least some of up believe the chair of a new WG should
have
>> >the discretion to interpret "meeting" as "session" since
>> >participation is only defined per session (currently)
>> >
>> > In addition I have seen some side traffic concerning other
process
>> >issues relevant to the upcoming 802.20 elections. However, the
>> >focus of my interpretation request is really on whether or not the
>> >membership in 802.20 is valid, not on the election process itself.
>> >I encourage others to start dealing with that topic if they feel it
>> >is an issue. Based on the comments to date, I would have to say
>> >that the rule in error is the one that determines membership
>> >retention. Based on that my recommended interpretation would be to
>> >interpret section 5.1.3.2 titled "Retention" to read:
>> >
>> > "Membership is retained by participating in at least
two
>> >of the last four Plenary session meetings. One duly constituted
>> >interim Working Group or task group meeting may be substituted for
>> >one of the two Plenary meetings. (In the case of a new working
group
>> >with less than 4 meetings, it is assumed that the 4 plenary
sessions
>> >prior to the formation of the group were attended by the new WG
>> >members when determining if membership is retained.)"
>> >
>> >I want to clearly establish before the interim what the membership
>> >status of 802.20 members will be for that meeting. This
>> >interpretation would enforce that membership in that WG is
>> >maintained until it can unambiguously be demonstrated that the
>> >retention requirements were not met. If anyone objects to this
>> >interpretation please state so, and why they believe so. I want to
>> >have a full 30 day ballot on an interpretation and I want to make
>> >sure I get it right before I put it forward. That is why I am
>> >trying to get inputs now. Please tell me what you think.
>> >
>> >Thanks,
> > >
>> >Mat
>> >
>> >Matthew Sherman
>> >Vice Chair, IEEE 802
>> >Technology Consultant
>> >Communications Technology Research
>> >AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
>> >Room B255, Building 103
>> >180 Park Avenue
>> >P.O. Box 971
>> >Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
>> >Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
>> >Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
>> >EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Rigsbee, Everett O [mailto:everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com]
>> >Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 3:42 PM
>> >To: Grow, Bob; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>> >Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Bob, I agree completely. The practice in the past has been to
>> >grant voting rights based only on attendance at the first official
>> >meeting of the first plenary session. But since our rules only
>> >refer to "participation" in the first session, I am willing to
allow
>> >the WG chair to define exactly what is meant by participation. In
>> >this case however where you only have a temporary chair who may
have
>> >a stake in the outcome of the voting this may very well become the
>> >minefield to which you refer. Already there has been quite a bit
of
>> >dickering over what constitutes valid participation. That's why I
>> >think we need a re-run with the rules clearly spelled out in
>> >advance, so that everyone has a fair chance to participate. Let's
>> >hope Geoff can bring his usual measure of sanity to the process.
>> >J
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Thanx, Buzz
>> >Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
>> >Boeing - SSG
>> >PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
>> >Seattle, WA 98124-2207
>> >(425) 865-2443 Fx: (425) 865-6721
>> >everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Grow, Bob [mailto:bob.grow@intel.com]
>> >Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 10:05 AM
>> >To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>> >Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Buzz may be the longest term SEC member, but I think I have a
>> >slightly different long term perspective as having been in the 802
>> >trenches the longest of any SEC member. Since 1981 I have
>> >participated in (and I think had voting rights on): 802.2 (as an
>> >802 voter), 802.3, 802.4 (when it was part of the Token DLMAC),
>> >802.5, 802.6, 802.9 and 802.11. I have had membership in two
>> >working groups at the same time. I have been involved in the
>> >organization of Working Group(s) (802.5 when 802 got dots, and
>> >either one or both of 802.6 and 802.9) becoming a member at an
>> >initial meeting. My recollection is that received member rights at
>> >an organizational meeting, independent of session attendance during
>> >the plenary week. While long term historical perspective is
>> >enlightening, it may also be a mine field.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--Bob Grow
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: mjsherman@research.att.com
[mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
>> >Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 7:53 PM
>> >To: everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>> >Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
>> >
>> >Buzz,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Much appreciated, and very enlightening!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Mat
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Matthew Sherman
>> >Vice Chair, IEEE 802
>> >Technology Consultant
>> >Communications Technology Research
>> >AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
>> >Room B255, Building 103
>> >180 Park Avenue
>> >P.O. Box 971
>> >Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
>> >Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
>> >Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
>> >EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Rigsbee, Everett O [mailto:everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com]
>> >Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:46 PM
>> >To: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew); stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>> >Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Colleagues, Matt Sherman has raised some good points for us to
>consider.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >As our now longest-term member of the SEC, I believe I can speak to
>> >the intention of the current rules based on prior discussions going
>> >back to when the rules were created. The intention behind section
>> >5.1.3.1 was that all attendees who participated in the first
>> >official plenary meeting would be automatically granted full voting
> > >rights (membership) on a grandfathered basis (as though they had
>> >attended the two prior plenaries) so that there would be a pool of
>> >eligible members (voters) to allow for quorum establishment and
>> >transaction of committee business. Otherwise a new working group
>> >would be unable to transact any business for two meetings,
something
>> >that was deemed unacceptable. There was consideration given to
>> >having a participation requirement based on the preliminary
>> >activities of an initial Study Group, but my recollection is that
>> >study groups were viewed as possibly transitory and unstable
>> >entities, which were subject to changes and might not be fully
>> >attended by the major players until such time as a PAR was
>> >officially approved. So the intention was that the fairest basis
>> >was to allow everyone who was willing to commit to active
>> >participation at the first official meeting should be treated as
>> >equal participants and granted full membership.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Every new Working Group and TAG that has come aboard has had this
>> >same basic rule, so it has worked fairly well. However this is the
>> >very first instance that I'm aware of, in which all of the officers
>> >elected had not been participants of the prior Study group which
>> >created the PAR. With the exception of Peter Tarrant, who led the
>> >Hi-Speed LAN Study Group that ultimately morphed into 100BASE-T and
>> >802.12, the person who was chair of the Study Group has always been
>> >elected to Chair the Working Group or TAG. There was some serious
>> >controversy about that particular dynamic as well.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >I personally believe that the correct course for us will be to
>> >maintain the voters list from the Dallas meeting and run a roll
call
>> >election at the July plenary. Anyone who qualified as a voter in
>> >Dallas should be entitled to vote in SF whether they attend the
>> >interim or not. Once the outcome is officially recorded, the SEC
>> >can address any remaining issues of block voting based on the data,
>> >rather than on a lot of hearsay and opinion. At least there is
some
>> >opportunity in the meantime to find some compromise solutions which
>> >may allow the problem to solve itself. Time heals all wounds. J
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Thanx, Buzz
>> >Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
>> >Boeing - SSG
>> >PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
>> >Seattle, WA 98124-2207
>> >(425) 865-2443 Fx: (425) 865-6721
>> >everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: mjsherman@research.att.com
[mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
>> >Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 6:14 PM
>> >To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>> >Subject: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Gentle-folks:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >I wish to call to your attention to a particular section of
Robert's
>> >Rules. That section is the following from Article IX of Robert's
>> >Rules (10th edition):
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "If a bylaw is ambiguous, it must be interpreted, if
>> >possible, in harmony with other bylaws. The interpretations should
>> >be in accordance with the intention of the society at the time the
>> >bylaw was adopted, as far as this can be determined. Again, intent
>> >plays no role unless the meaning is unclear or uncertain, but where
>> >an ambiguity exists, a majority vote is all that is required to
>> >decide the question. The ambiguous or doubtful expression should
be
>> >amended as soon as practicable."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >I am of the opinion that our "bylaws" (the LMSC P&P) are in fact
>> >"ambiguous or doubtful" regarding the process of obtaining
>> >membership at the start up of a working group. In particular we
>> >have from section 5.1.3.1 titled "Establishment":
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "All persons participating in the initial meeting of
the
>> >Working Group become members of the Working Group."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On the other hand we have from section 5.1.3.2 titled "Retention":
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Membership is retained by participating in at least
two
>> >of the last four Plenary session meetings. One duly constituted
>> >interim Working Group or task group meeting may be substituted for
> > >one of the two Plenary meetings."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >As was so well explained by Tony (thank you for the excellent
>> >analysis) in an earlier e-mail, these two rules clearly seem to be
>> >at odds with one another. Setting aside for a moment the question
>> >of whether or not we intended "meeting" or "session" in section
>> >5.1.3.1 (a topic for yet another interpretation) these two rules
>> >seem to conflict with one another. Even taking the liberal view
>> >that meeting means session, after the first session the general
>> >rules would kick in and all "members" would seem to lose their
>> >membership in the WG.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >All this said, we already have a P&P change ballot which should
>> >"fix" this problem by the end of the July meeting. My concern is
>> >for the beginning of the July meeting. Given what happened in
March
>> >to 802.20, I would like to have a clearer interpretation of these
>> >"bylaws" so that we don't have a repeat of the last meeting. As
>> >indicated by Robert's Rules, an interpretation can be established
by
>> >majority vote. I believe a motion could be put forward and then
>> >approved electronically prior to the July meeting. But before I do
>> >that, I wanted to open this issue for debate prior to making any
>> >motions so that I can make sure I make the right motion (or perhaps
>> >chose not to make a motion at all).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Any comments on this topic?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Mat
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Matthew Sherman
>> >Vice Chair, IEEE 802
>> >Technology Consultant
>> >Communications Technology Research
>> >AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
>> >Room B255, Building 103
>> >180 Park Avenue
>> >P.O. Box 971
>> >Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
>> >Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
>> >Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
>> >EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
>> >
>> >
>>